• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thunder said:
well, you also do think the Civil War was a rebellion.
Click to expand...

No I don't. Don't tell me what I'm supposed to think. I left the plantation a long time ago!
 
Thunder said:
its very simple: suggesting that secession was not about slavery or racism, is historical revisionism, not unlike Holocaust-denial.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between supporting the right of a state to secede and supporting the CSA. To take the issue of slavery out of it, there is currently a small secession movement in Vermont. Let's say that it grew to the point where Vermonters voted to leave the union. Would you oppose such a withdrawal?
 
Centinel said:
There is a difference between supporting the right of a state to secede and supporting the CSA. To take the issue of slavery out of it, there is currently a small secession movement in Vermont. Let's say that it grew to the point where Vermonters voted to leave the union. Would you oppose such a withdrawal?
Click to expand...

yes, one can support the hypothetical right of secession without supporting the CSA.

however, such folks don't wave CSA flags.
 
Thunder said:
yes, one can support the hypothetical right of secession without supporting the CSA.

however, such folks don't wave CSA flags.
Click to expand...

Cool. So you support the right of a state to secede? Do you think it's constitutional?
 
Centinel said:
Cool. So you support the right of a state to secede? Do you think it's constitutional?
Click to expand...

No. Secession is unconstitutional. This has been proven time and time again. That means any state.
 
Centinel said:
Cool. So you support the right of a state to secede? Do you think it's constitutional?
Click to expand...

#1. there MUST be a general referendum in the state.

#2. I would think such referendum would require a super-majority of 60%.

#3. all state legislatures would have to then vote on allowing secession. again, 60% of the states should approve.

if they get all that...then sure...addios muchacho.
 
Thunder said:
#1. there MUST be a general referendum in the state.

#2. I would think such referendum would require a super-majority of 60%.

#3. all state legislatures would have to then vote on allowing secession. again, 60% of the states should approve.

if they get all that...then sure...addios muchacho.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks for the answer.

AFTERTHOUGHT EDIT - I'm curious. Where did you come up with this procedure?
 
Last edited:
99percenter said:
No. Secession is unconstitutional. This has been proven time and time again. That means any state.
Click to expand...

And yet you've still refused to prove it.
 
99percenter said:
The 10th amendment doesnt give a state the right to secede.
Click to expand...

And you have proof of this how?

10th Amendment said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

In proving that the 10th Amendment doesn't give a state the right to secede, you would have to prove that...
A. The power to prevent secession is delegated to the United States by the constitution.
B. The act of Secession is prohibited to the states by the U.S. Constitution.
 
99percenter said:
The 10th amendment doesnt give a state the right to secede.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Unless you can show me where the states delegated to the US the power to restrict withdrawal from the union, then that power is reserved to the states. In other words, the US government only has those powers it was delegated by the states. It has no other powers, including the power to restrict withdrawal from the union.
 
Caine said:
And you have proof of this how?

In proving that the 10th Amendment doesn't give a state the right to secede, you would have to prove that...
A. The power to prevent secession is delegated to the United States by the constitution.
B. The act of Secession is prohibited to the states by the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...

Caine - Get out of my head. :)
 
apdst said:
Because in 1869, the Supreme Court ruled secession illegal.
Click to expand...

Secession was always illegal. The south new what they were doing was illegal. You cannnot seize federal property. If china came and said all right we are going to take away florida form you guys would you say its legal. Same thing happened during the civil war. Insurgents tried to steal american property. That's unacceptable.
 
apdst said:
Because in 1869, the Supreme Court ruled secession illegal.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

My contention is that their opinion is not based upon the constitution and is therefore invalid.

Of course, they think they're right, and they got the guns, so my opinion and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
 
99percenter said:
Secession was always illegal. The south new what they were doing was illegal. You cannnot seize federal property. If china came and said all right we are going to take away florida form you guys would you say its legal. Same thing happened during the civil war. Insurgents tried to steal american property. That's unacceptable.
Click to expand...

No they werent.

You have to understand something.... We've come a long way from what we are SUPPOSED to be.

We were never intended to be a nation with a strong central government.

The states belonged to the people of those states, not to the federal government.

The civil war was a big turn towards a strong federal government seizing powers for itself left and right, in the form that you see now.
 
Caine said:
No they werent.

You have to understand something.... We've come a long way from what we are SUPPOSED to be.

We were never intended to be a nation with a strong central government.

The states belonged to the people of those states, not to the federal government.

The civil war was a big turn towards a strong federal government seizing powers for itself left and right, in the form that you see now.
Click to expand...

We were supposed to have a strong federal govt. The founders tried a weak govt with the articles of confederation. that didnt work so they created a strong federal govt.
 
99percenter said:
Secession was always illegal. The south new what they were doing was illegal. You cannnot seize federal property. If china came and said all right we are going to take away florida form you guys would you say its legal. Same thing happened during the civil war. Insurgents tried to steal american property. That's unacceptable.
Click to expand...

The states are not the property of the US government. In fact, it is more accurate to say that the US government is the property of the states. It is their creation, made with the intention of serving their needs, not the other way around.

It has turned into a frankenstein monster.

It is like the pot that believes it created the potter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom